EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[rickolasnice]

Hey guys!

Did you miss me?

raas; I'm gonna break down my Jesus Fesus to give you a better chance at coherently refuting what I say.. And only post one part at a time..

Luke and Matthew copied Mark while adding their own bits and pieces here and there - Therefore Mark is the only story with any credit.

Evidence:

NSFW:

Mark 11:28 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"29 Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"31 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

Matthew 21:"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"24 Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

Luke 20:2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?"5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."

"When it was evening, after sunset"[Mk 1:32]
When it was evening"[Mt 8:16]
"As the sun was setting"[Lk 4:40]

"the leprosy left him and he was cleansed"[Mk 1:42]
"the leprosy left him"[Lk 5:13]
"his leprosy was cleansed"[Mt 8:3]

And
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:9-14;Mark 3:1-6;Luke 6:6-11&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:1-8;Mark 2:23-28;Luke 6:1-5&version=ASV
and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 15:32-39;Mark 8:1-10&version=ASV

And hundreds and hundreds more: http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html

You can see that the incomplete copies of Mark both include the first detail and not the other, while the other gospel will include the other without the first.

There are also clues in the order of events that happen within the first 3 gospels. When Matthew and Luke disagree on the order of events, Mark will agree with one of them, other than that they all agree on the order, again suggesting Mark was the first gospel written and Matthew, Luke and later John used Mark's writings to write their own.

So - Luke and Matthew's gospels are mere rip off's of Mark's.

Agreed? Yay? Nay?

Ah sorry you did address this point before:

NSFW:

There is good evidence that both Luke and Matthew may have used Mark's gospel as a source (or a common corpus of material which preceded Mark), as well as other oral or written sources.

However, despite all 4 gospels having an objective of verifying the historical existence of Jesus, their aims differentiate. They are not intended to be 4 composite, precise, stories. They have different aims, and selectively include what text is necessary to realise these aims. What is covered in Matthew, for instance, may have been deliberately left out of Luke if it does not suit it's purpose.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...rgin_Birth.htm
The four gospels are eyewitness portraits of the life and events of Jesus Christ. They do, however, reveal somewhat different purposes with respect to emphasis. The Gospel of Matthew without doubt was intended for the Jewish community and a primary focus on Jesus as the Messiah who historically fulfilled the prophetic predictions and promises mentioned throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as the "Son of Man," that is, with an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and it was written primarily to the Gentile world.

The Gospel of John has yet a different focus. John clearly identified that his primary purpose was to prove that Jesus was God Himself. When John wrote his gospel near the end of the first century, Gnostics and other sects were beginning to question the divine nature of Christ, and John's major intent in his Gospel was to answer these critics.

The Gospel of Mark was written to demonstrate Christ as the Servant: "For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke make sense, because they would be important to establish both Messianic and human lineage. It does not, however, suit Mark's purpose, as the lineage of a "slave" or a "servant" is unimportant. This answers your question about why one would not expect Mark to mention the virgin birth in his gospel. It did not suit his purpose.

But this doesn't take into consideration the amount of word for word copies of Mark's work. And there are a lot of clues suggesting they were copying Mark's work, not other texts, as i mentioned earlier the examples of when Luke would use half the words of Mark while Matthew would use the other half..

You are right, though, about the authors differing agenda.. How does this not completely destroy the gospels hope of being looked at as a factual, historical account? They are written differently as to target a different audience.. And because of this there are some events written in the gospels that we know are false or would have to be false, such as;

The date of Jesus' birth..
Matthew says it was during the reign of Herod, Luke says it was during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria.. OK.. Herod died in 4BC and the census took place in 6 and 7AD.. 10 years between them. At least one of these account have to be false.

The place..
Matthew and Luke both say Bethlehem, in accordance to prophecy. Luke says Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem while Matthew says it was only after Jesus' birth that they resided in Nazareth because they were too afraid to return to Judea. At least one of these accounts have to be false.

The trial.. The priests that questioned Jesus..
Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.
Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.
Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

And hundreds more.. When we know that some of the gospels are false accounts, but we don't know what one or what parts, what makes you think they are trust worthy? This is not just the author simply emphasizing certain parts of the story or even an author missing bits out.. this is an author purposely and obviously making stuff up to support their agenda or just to make it a better story.

None of these stories are eye witness accounts.. if you think they are you are purposely ignoring the piles of evidence that they are not. Where in the gospels do you read of Jesus addressing the author or the author speaking at all?

We can go over the virgin birth next, if you'd like?

 

[maxalfie]

2 Kings 6:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 So we boiled my son,
and did eat him: and I said
unto her on the next day,
Give thy son, that we may
eat him: and she hath hid
her son.
Lovely, can't beat a bit of cannabilism.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ I was going to take the "Sacrificing her son is a reference to Jesus" approach, but with investigation it seems that it's not a metaphorical verse, just a repercussion of a terrible famine for the sins of that nation...or something along those lines...

I love the way it's written so candidly though. "So we boiled my son, and did eat him" as if there's absolutely no stress over it.

---

Oh no, Ricko... can't you just convert? It will make everything so much easier and hassle free.

I'm actually reading the gospels that didn't make it at the moment, so will be able to answer or give thoughts on some of your earlier questions. I also find it very interesting to read that some parts of the gospels were added years later by other people and that our modern day translations are certainly not the exact "word of God", which I accept is contrary to my previous understanding

As promised also I'll give a thorough critique into your fesus in the near future.

---

Thats true, spiritually, psychologically that happened to me last week during the storms. The screeching winds around my windows kinda added to the atmosphere of death, insanity, depression and despair basically. I became ultra sensitive to the vileness of my sin and falling short of what i'm created for. I felt certain i was dead and in hell or on the way and actually thoroughly convicted that I deserved it. At the last knockings though this verse came to me:

[I]“The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”e For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “[B]Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved[/B].”[/I] Romans 10:13
[/QUOTE]

That's beautiful, Jess. It's funny because during the storms I too feared it was God being angry and full of wrath! The wind was pelting against the window, it was natural to think "ok, what's he so mad at??".

It sounds to me like you are having trouble living your life in the way God would want, but the fact you are aware of it and face up to it is really important and commendable. Now you just have to follow through and seek solutions.
[/hr]

 

[Vurtual]

....I'm actually reading the gospels that didn't make it at the moment, so will be able to answer or give thoughts on some of your earlier questions. I also find it very interesting to read that some parts of the gospels were added years later by other people and that our modern day translations are certainly not the exact "word of God", which I accept is contrary to my previous understanding....

[/hr]

That's brilliant to hear Raas - i genuinely hope you get something positive from your reading - not because i think 'my side' is winning an argument (i don't think i've got a side or helped win anything with my verbiage), but cos i think you can get a better christianity that way (and surely lovely jesus would be happy with a bit of curiosity) - i reckon your core faith shouldn't really be troubled by getting a (imo) more objective view of the bible; if anything it should concentrate the core principles better (whatever you end up thinking they are, or if they even have to change for you)

i try to encourage christians i meet (only when it comes up) to look into the bible with a bit more nuance and interpretation mainly so that they can (imo) get more out of it (and probably to show off a bit) - rather than trying to make them lose their faith or anything. i reckon i might have been doing that when i was younger and a bit more athiest and got into these conversations. and it generally got angry and didn't feel good. Now i think i usually try to focus on the nice bits in these convos, and only focus on negative things i know about that contradict those nice bits

(and yeah maxalfie's quote was a shocker until i googled the preceeding couple of sentences for context - bit below par for this thread really

 

[maxalfie]

(and yeah maxalfie's quote was a
shocker until i googled the preceeding
couple of sentences for context - bit
below par for this thread really

Sorry I didn't realise that posts in this thread had to be at a certain 'par'.
Why is me finding mentions of cannabilism in the bible a surprise considered below par?

 

[Vurtual]

(twas a joke like -no offence meant - i was commenting on the high quality of the arguments in the thread. no, your post was welcome and interesting - especially with the background, (i was just joking that as a dig at the christitans it was below par cos raas only needed one google to sort it out)

 

[maxalfie]

Ok, my post though wasn't meant as a dig at anyone,I was just surprised to come across such a thing that is all.

 

[rickolasnice]

raas..

Be sure to read the Infancy Gospels of Thomas and the Arabic Infancy Gospels.. they're a hoot.

I know most of my posts are focused at raas but anybody got anything to say about my Jesus Fesus?

NSFW:

Part one:

NSFW:

The gospels of Mark, Matthewand Luke are pretty much the same story, jumbed up with small additions depending on the agenda of the author. They have so many word for word parallel stories they could only have come from one piece of writing, so which was the original? Scholars agree that The Gospels of Mark were written first, partly because it is the most simple and the shortest but mostly because it doesn't include the virgin birth, an important art of the story of the life of Jesus that wouldn't have been left out had Mark been copying any of the other three.

Here is just one of many examples of the parallels between texts, proving that the bulk of the story of the life of Jesus came from one source, Mark.

Mark 11:28 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"29 Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"31 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

Matthew 21:"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"24 Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

Luke 20:2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?"3 He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4 John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?"5 They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' 6 But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html

There are also other hints that Mark was written first. When you consider the passages:

"When it was evening, after sunset"[Mk 1:32]
When it was evening"[Mt 8:16]
"As the sun was setting"[Lk 4:40]

"the leprosy left him and he was cleansed"[Mk 1:42]
"the leprosy left him"[Lk 5:13]
"his leprosy was cleansed"[Mt 8:3]

You can see that the incomplete copies of Mark both include the first detail and not the other, while the other gospel will include the other without the first.

There are also clues in the order of events that happen within the first 3 gospels. When Matthew and Luke disagree on the order of events, Mark will agree with one of them, other than that they all agree on the order, again suggesting Mark was the first gospel written and Matthew, Luke and later John used Mark's writings to write their own.

The Gospels of John is agreed to be the gospel written the latest of the 4 by someone who spoke greek as a first language, giving the life story of Jesus a gnostic, anti-semmatic twist.

By reading and studying the 4 gospels of Jesus it is clear that the main story, the character of Jesus, was created by one author, Mark, while the gospels following were copies of the original.. with some additions.

The additions Matthew make have underlying themes of politics and conflict while Luke focuses more on faith, poverty, happiness and humility. There are different theories as to who came first; Matthew or Luke? There are too many parallels between stories told by Matthew and Luke for them to be two completely independent pieces of writing. I personally believe "Farrer Theory" which is that Luke got his info from both Mark and Matthew.

Matthew's additions seem to indicate he was making Jesus fit as many of the prophecies as best he could to solidify the idea that Jesus was indeed the messiah, as fortold in ancient scripture. Luke seemed more focused on making his version more "user friendly" for the Gentiles - to basically get as many people as possible to convert. Could it be that Matthew was written for the Jewish community (by making him fit prophecy fortold in their scripture) while Luke's story was written for the Gentiles - Using a high quality style of greek writing, not unlike that of a greek novel from around the same time period.

Part two:

NSFW:

Almost every detail of Jesus' life comes straight from the Old Testament in 3 types of ways; explicitly referencing hebrew scripture, using hebrew scriptures for underlying theme and quoting or paraphrasing hebrew scripture without indicating that they had..

Type 1 example:

John 12:
12 The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting,

‘Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord—
the King of Israel!’
14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written:

15 ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
Look, your king is coming,
sitting on a donkey’s colt!’
16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him.

This passage in John refers to Zechariah 9, which discusses the judgment of the enemies of Israel and the coming of a warrior who will lead the Israelites against their enemies:

Zechariah 9:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
and the warhorse from Jerusalem;
and the battle-bow shall be cut off,
and he shall command peace to the nations;
his dominion shall be from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth.

Type 2: Isaiah 13 is basically the underlying theme of Jesus' life

Isaiah 53:
Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account.

Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
Who could have imagined his future?
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.
They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
When you make his life an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.
Out of his anguish he shall see light;
he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Type 3:Read these passages from the Old Testament in this order.. Notice anything?

Isaiah 50:
6 I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.
Amos 2:
11 I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?' declares the LORD. 12 'But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

Psalm 22:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
...
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
...
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

Psalm 69:
Insults have broken my heart, so that I am in despair. I looked for pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

Amos 8:
8 "Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? ... 9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

Ezekiel 37:
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "

Anyone see the story of crucifixtion in there - clear as day?

And then there are loads of word for word (or very close to) copies from Jewish scripture to the New.. here are a few:

Matthew 26:20: "Even the friend whom I trusted, who ate at my table, exults in my misfortune."
Psalm 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Matthew 26:55 "...he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "
Isaiah 53:7-87 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Matthew 9:12 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

For more go to http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes01.cfm

So when looking at the Gospels of Mark, of which all others stemmed from, it's clear that he uses hebrew scripture as a backbone and filler to write the story of Jesus.. The whole thing is a clever cut, jumble and paste piece of work by Mark.

Part three

NSFW:

An immaculate birth. Born of the virgin Mary. Where did this part of the story come from, then?

Matthew 1:22 22
All this took place to fulfilll what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

This is the verse in which he is referring to:

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

That is the English translation found in the New International Version Bible.. But this is simply a mistranslation. Not from the greek to the english, but from the aramaic to the greek. Matthew clearly used a greek copy of the scripture because when the aramaic is translated properly;

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el." ..

The whole concept of Jesus being born of a virgin birth come from Matthew reading a mistranslated prophecy and adding it to his Gospels as part of the life of life of Jesus. This was then copied by Luke and then John.

Part four

NSFW:

So what is this Jesus as spoke about by Paul like? Here are some passages from Pauls writings and subsequent letters:

Colossians 1:24
I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. 25 I became its servant according toGod’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

This passage calls the church itself the body of Christ. His wordings regarding God being the one making the riches known, and those riches are Christ within them, suggest that the Jesus as preached by Paul is a spiritual being, a way of living, perhaps, but certainly not a human being who had supposedly walked the earth less than two decades ago.

12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

These passages again refer to the church as Christs body.. and again he speaks of Christ as some kind of goal of transendence by living in a certain way. Paul is clearly talking about the expansion of the church.

Galatians 3:1
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law,or by believing what you heard?

Here Paul clearly says Christ was portrayed as crucified, again talking of Christ and crucifixtion metaphorically. He also quickly installs the notion of "all you need is faith" to stop people using their rational mind.

These passages seem to indicate Paul did not consider Jesus to have been a human man and uses the term crucifixtion metaphorically (as he does in other texts I haven't bothered including here).

Part five?

NSFW:

What else did Paul teach?

Throughout all of Pauls writings he preaches love Jesus, love Jesus, love Jesus. There is very little teachings of much else, besides from obeying those above you, including emporors, paying your taxes and don't stray from his teachings (the church).

1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority,13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ...... 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

This one is important:

16 Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me

The collection plate has now been invented. And who is it that accompanied him?

2 Corinthians 16 Thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same concern I have for you. 17 For Titus not only welcomed our appeal, but he is coming to you with much enthusiasm and on his own initiative.

Titus at around this time would have been a Praetorian prefect in the Roman consul and will soon become Emporer. But what had Titus been up to preivously?

A piece of writing by Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian who's job was to follow Titus and document his campaign; http://www.publicbookshelf.com/publ...at_Books_Volume_I/templejer_cg.htmlParagraphs of importance:

THUS the fight continued for three days, till Titus a second time entered the wall. He threw down all the northern part and strongly garrisoned the towers of the south. The strong heights of Sion, the citadel of the Antonia, and the fortified Temple still held out. Titus, eager to save so magnificent a place, resolved to refrain for a few days from the attack, in order that the minds of the besieged might be affected by their woes, and that the slow results of famine might operate. He reviewed his army in full armour, and they received their pay in view of the city, the battlements being thronged by spectators during this splendid defiling, who looked on in terror and dismay.TITUS now promised that the Temple should be spared if the defenders would come forth and fight in any other place, but John and the Zealots refused to surrender it. For several days the outer cloisters and outer court were attacked with rams, but the immense and compact stones resisted the blows. As many soldiers were slain in seeking to storm the cloisters, Titus ordered the gates to be set on fire. Through that night and the next day the flames raged through the cloisters. Then, in order to save the Temple itself, he ordered the fire to be quenched. On the tenth of August, the same day of the year on which Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple built by Solomon, the cry was heard that the Temple was on fire. The Jews, with cries of grief and rage, grasped their swords and rushed to take revenge on their enemies or perish in the ruins. The slaughter was continued while the fire raged. Soon no part was left but a small portion of the outer cloisters, where 6,000 people had taken refuge, led by a false prophet who had there promised that God would deliver His people in His Temple. The soldiers set the building on fire and all perished. Titus next spent eighteen days in preparations for the attack on the upper city, which was then speedily captured. And now the Romans were not disposed to display any mercy, night alone putting an end to the carnage. During the whole of this siege of Jerusalem, 1,100,000 were slain, and the prisoners numbered 97,000.

Titus had literally just finished a long campaign of squashing the Jewish rebels within Judea, ending with his successful take over of Jeruselum and a march back to Rome with stolen Jewish gold. The Titus Arch was built in celebration of this victory.. Here you can clearly make Roman soldiers carrying Jewish booty, particularly the Menorah.

Throughout Pauls writings his agenda is clear. Gain as many followers as possible. Convert as many people as possible. Help the church grow as much as possible. But also make it clear you should pay Roman taxes and obey those in positions above yours, as God put them there.

1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie,promised before the beginning of time, 3 and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,4 To Titus, my true son in our common faith:Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 3:3 3
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good.

So we have a partnership between the writer of the earliest scripture we have, one of the original apostles; Paul and Titus, a Praetorian Prefect soon to become emporor.

The main lessons being taught are: LOVE JESUS and obey your leaders, pay your taxes, etc.

We have the introduction of the collection plate which is being taken by a higher member of the Roman Empire.

I give to you; the birth of the Roman Cathiolic Church.

But what came first? The religion of a loving Jesus, or the agenda to establish the Roman Catholic Church, an empire that never falls, that never loses money but always gains, an empire to never be attacked or threatened from another nation?

I propose that the Christian church spread so rapidly and indeed, existed in the first place was to establish a religion to replace all others ( Judaism, Paganism, etc) and establish The Roman Catholic Church.. the biggest criminal organisation in the world.

The Roman Empire didn't die, they became The Roman Catholic Church

 

[Vurtual]

....

...The Roman Empire didn't die, they became The Roman Catholic Church

Interesting stuff. What i know about all this is pretty hazily-remembered (and at least some of it maybe from flaky sources (eg Baigent)) - but i'll give me two penneth's worth on your fesus...

It's well established that Mark is earliest and it's pretty clear to me that the others were more-or-less tweaked copies with a target audience in mind - i'm not convinced that it was planned that way from the start though (if that's what you were saying), just different groups running with their own versions and putting their own slant on i reckon (there were loads of versions knocking about after all). Though i'm sure the particular selection of the four was done with more thought and manipulative intent when whittling them down at Nicea later.

As you show, it's obvious there's stuff copied from the old testament - although i had an idea from somewhere that this wasn't uncommon in jewish (and other) religious scriptures - often as a sort of sacred tribute or a code rather than plaigiarism (like the 'pesher' stuff in the dead sea scrolls?). And maybe just to adopt the style of already holy books to make your new one seem more holy.

The virgin birth mistranslation is interesting - sort of corroborated by jesus being thought of as a messiah when he had to be descended from both joseph and mary to qualify (from Aaron and David?). Virgin birth was a pretty common element in religions at the time though, so i still think it could have come in regardless of the translation (just as one of the sort of things you might say about your messiah). Similar to the common elements between different faiths (mithras, krishna, jesus etc.) which zeitgeist and the like jump on - at least some of the time i think this was done knowingly, sort of as extra proof of your current god-man-type thing (eg my current messiah is definitely a god-man-type thing cos he was born of a virgin like zoroaster, or in a stable like mithras (or whoever)).

I'm not sure i buy how early you think the roman-controlled element went - i definitely agree the western roman empire became the roman catholic church (that's not controversial to me), but i think this process only really happened properly later (eg under Constantine). That Constantine's regime made so much effort to establish and tweak its doctrine to become a state religion i think suggests that it was already a powerful established religion (or collection of religions) outside of the state's control - he was acting to defuse the trouble that it already caused the state (when feeding them to the lions became unfeasible). And subsuming a religion that was troublesome to become the state religion is sort of paralell to the imperial method of adopting client kings as roman citizens.

Then there's the feeding to the lions (etc) - not really needed if it was already controlled by the roman state from early on. I suppose you could argue some clever variation on divide and conquer (which the romans invented i guess), but to pull it off in this way from Paul's time to the time of Constantine seems a little sophisticated for all the different roman regimes involved (which were pretty chaotic as a rule). I'd need to see more evidence to convince me.

That's not to say that there wasn't already a roman-friendly version of christianity from very early on that tried to establish it's dominance over the others (from peter) - and reading that Titus stuff, Paul would seem to be linked to that in some way (if only in spirit). But the Roman christians still had plenty of persecution from the state early on. And plenty of other christian groups spouted stuff that definitely wasn't subservient to authority like Paul's above quotes seem to be (hence the lions).

There was a bit of a fashion in roman society at that time for the exotic eastern religions in romanised versions that didn't bear too much resemblance to the originals (eg Mithras) - this would explain the features of the early roman-influenced strand of christianity better for me.

So in summary, i'm still not convinced that christianity was invented as a ready-made state religion - it just seems too messy for this (eg the variation between copts, celts, arians, gnostics, manicheans doesn't seem controlled to me). However, i think you could definitely argue it became a state-controlled religion, more or less designed for control purposes under constantine. Sorry if i'm nit-picking - i sort of want to believe your fesus (cos it'd be a cool story) - but need more convincing.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

^ I was going to take the "Sacrificing her son is a reference to Jesus" approach, but with investigation it seems that it's not a metaphorical verse, just a repercussion of a terrible famine for the sins of that nation...or something along those lines...

I love the way it's written so candidly though. "So we boiled my son, and did eat him" as if there's absolutely no stress over it.

---

Oh no, Ricko... can't you just convert? It will make everything so much easier and hassle free.

I'm actually reading the gospels that didn't make it at the moment, so will be able to answer or give thoughts on some of your earlier questions. I also find it very interesting to read that some parts of the gospels were added years later by other people and that our modern day translations are certainly not the exact "word of God", which I accept is contrary to my previous understanding

As promised also I'll give a thorough critique into your fesus in the near future.

---

That's beautiful, Jess. It's funny because during the storms I too feared it was God being angry and full of wrath! The wind was pelting against the window, it was natural to think "ok, what's he so mad at??".

It sounds to me like you are having trouble living your life in the way God would want, but the fact you are aware of it and face up to it is really important and commendable. Now you just have to follow through and seek solutions.

I was. It was the way I was living and my heart attitude. I could pass as a reasonably 'nice' person superficially but my heart was full of unforgiveness, sin and bitterness. I was like a wandering star (jude] just ambling through life going my own way and piling sin on sin.

I sunk down to the depths this one night with the wind screeching and whistling macabre around my window. 'depths' is an inadequate adjective for the place I found myself.. an entity ( cant say which an accuser/angel of the lord not sure] convicted me of all my icky, rough,judgemental, proud, ignorant, unforgiving, irreverent, bitter sins and i was dead guilty.. I couldn't justify myself.. the more i tried the more i sunk. The convicting went on for a few nights. I was utterly lost and shattered to the core until just before dawn on that last night I found that verse* and it seemed to come to Life. I spoke it outloud and believed it! Consolations and comfort followed and then ( i know it sounds corny but hey that was the way it happened ] the sun came up. And since then i've felt Him leading me closely and I pray to God I dont wander again. 'my sins were like scarlet but he made them white as snow (isaiah]

*Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13

NB there needs to be a degree ( even a really tiny seed of faith even hope that He is Saviour.. its not a get out pit free card. What do you think Raas, other beliviers .. faith and/or hope (my question mark is playing me up]

 

[Sammy G]

*Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13

Not true, at least in my experience.

I cut my finger in the kitchen the other day, shouted 'Jesus!' when I saw the blood, and then immediately split my head open on a cupboard door.

Didn't bloody well save me, did he?

 

[NightsEpiphany]

Hello Samster. Nice to see ya. Didge u get a pwaster = ( ?

I thought you didn't believe in Jesus.

Here is the entire chapter of Romans 10 if anyone is curious to peruse the promise of God re salvation from sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 10&version=NIV

 

[Sammy G]

Nice to see you too, NE. Hope you're keeping well.

Believe in Jesus? I used to look at him in the mirror some mornings.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

i'm grounded ta Sam. Which is better than well to me. Actually, grounded certainly looks like up to me so that good.

Re seeing Jesus in mirror. Wow Sam that must have been incredible. What did he look like ?

 

[Sammy G]

He looked extremely handsome and wise, with jet black hair, hazel eyes and stubble.

At least he had stubble prior to me shaving. After that he had no facial hair.

 

[NightsEpiphany]

i'm glad you didn't sport a goatee that day.

 

[rickolasnice]

So in summary, i'm still not convinced that christianity was invented as a ready-made state religion - it just seems too messy for this (eg the variation between copts, celts, arians, gnostics, manicheans doesn't seem controlled to me). However, i think you could definitely argue it became a state-controlled religion, more or less designed for control purposes under constantine. Sorry if i'm nit-picking - i sort of want to believe your fesus (cos it'd be a cool story) - but need more convincing.

What about the many parallels between Luke and the works of Josephus Flavius? A jewish historian employed (and kind of adopted by) the ruling elites of the roman empire..

Nah I know to be honest I don't truly believe it myself.. It's possible but i know that using the evidence I gave to conclude that Christianity was definitely a Roman creation would be a leap of faith to say the least.

Thanks for reading :D

 

[Raasyvibe]

Sorry I've been a bit vacant recently, im quite ill at mo and concentration on big posts is more hard work. So this will have to be short and sweet

That's brilliant to hear Raas - i genuinely hope you get something positive from your reading - not because i think 'my side' is winning an argument (i don't think i've got a side or helped win anything with my verbiage), but cos i think you can get a better christianity that way (and surely lovely jesus would be happy with a bit of curiosity) - i reckon your core faith shouldn't really be troubled by getting a (imo) more objective view of the bible; if anything it should concentrate the core principles better (whatever you end up thinking they are, or if they even have to change for you)

i try to encourage christians i meet (only when it comes up) to look into the bible with a bit more nuance and interpretation mainly so that they can (imo) get more out of it (and probably to show off a bit)

Thanks In terms of religion my agenda is only of truth. If someone believes they can discredit Christianity, sure i'll give it a listen. I've seen/heard enough experiences within the church to assess it as truth, though in fairness your bhuddists, Muslims and Hindu's are also claiming their own miracles, healings, transformations etc so I'm always as honest as I can be to myself and others.

I was. It was the way I was living and my heart attitude. I could pass as a reasonably 'nice' person superficially but my heart was full of unforgiveness, sin and bitterness. I was like a wandering star (jude] just ambling through life going my own way and piling sin on sin.

I sunk down to the depths this one night with the wind screeching and whistling macabre around my window. 'depths' is an inadequate adjective for the place I found myself.. an entity ( cant say which an accuser/angel of the lord not sure] convicted me of all my icky, rough,judgemental, proud, ignorant, unforgiving, irreverent, bitter sins and i was dead guilty.. I couldn't justify myself.. the more i tried the more i sunk. The convicting went on for a few nights. I was utterly lost and shattered to the core until just before dawn on that last night I found that verse* and it seemed to come to Life. I spoke it outloud and believed it! Consolations and comfort followed and then ( i know it sounds corny but hey that was the way it happened ] the sun came up. And since then i've felt Him leading me closely and I pray to God I dont wander again. 'my sins were like scarlet but he made them white as snow (isaiah]

*Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:13

NB there needs to be a degree ( even a really tiny seed of faith even hope that He is Saviour.. its not a get out pit free card. What do you think Raas, other beliviers .. faith and/or hope (my question mark is playing me up]

That's quite a story, NE. You seem to be doing the right thing by listening to your heart.


_____________________

Because I'm ill I've smoked some fine charas cannabis. It's very psychedelic, I always get visitations from ghosties on it. This has interested me to look into a Christian perspective on Psychedelic drugs.


Really disappointingly the Bible says nothing on the subject!



Or does it....


http://the-end-time.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/pharmakeia-psycedelic-drugs-and.html

Seems by reading the greek, it may do...

Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer. “And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer; and the light of a lamp will not shine in you any longer; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will not be heard in you any longer; for your merchants were the great men of the earth, because all the nations were deceived by your sorcery." (Revelation 18:21-23)

"The curious thing is that the word in the verse, "nations were deceived by your sorcery" the root Greek word for sorcery is actually pharmakeia. It is the word from which we get pharmacy. In the Strong's it means "from pharmakeuó (to administer drugs)." It is further defined as "the use of medicine, drugs or spells."



Are these psychedelic drugs killing our spirits? replacing our spirituality?

" the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer"



oooo errrr

 

[Inflorescence]

raas I have a book you may be interested in. How I have acquired it I have no idea..It's called 'Drugs-and young people' by Grahame Knox printed in '89 It has his interpretation following each main Drug chapter with a 'Christian standpoint'.
Personally I have read it and find quite unnerving in it's indoctrination, simplistic comments by the author and his own (in my opinion) uneducated and ridiculous lyrical waxing often scattered with quotes from the bible, which I can't see have any correlation on his 'standpoint' including a brief couple of pages of his perceived christian view on psychedelics.

In fairness the Introduction does actually start with alcohol....I was brought up catholic, I went to a Convent school through the majority of my education, I respect others beliefs although I expect not to be judged in return for what I choose to put in my body and my own belief systems etc..I even have a friend who is a Deacon..which shows even the most stalwart agnostic such as myself can happily decide to differ on religion as it is only a part of someone's beliefs not the actual person..who I hasten to add they are pretty good fun to be around.

If you want this book..tell me where to send it...if you don't want to own it or give that kind of info....it's probably a few pence on Amazon marketplace..as I said my personal views on this book are that it is unhelpful scaremongering under the guise of Christianity and most worryingly in my own view of his pretty unhelpful comments for those that may have debilitating anxiety etc as it seems the author is against any kind of 'medications' and believes that anxiety can be cured by allowing Jesus Christ in to their life ONLY rather than prescribed medications!!

 

[Sammy G]

Seems by reading the greek, it may do...



"The curious thing is that the word in the verse, "nations were deceived by your sorcery" the root Greek word for sorcery is actually pharmakeia. It is the word from which we get pharmacy. In the Strong's it means "from pharmakeuó (to administer drugs)." It is further defined as "the use of medicine, drugs or spells."

A fine example of how some right-wing Christians distort semantics in order to justify their political agendas through Biblical references.

In many ancient societies there was very little distinction between 'magic' and medicine, so it's pretty natural that the same word was applied to both indiscriminately. So if it follows that certain types of pharmakeia (i.e. psychedelic drugs) qualify as sorcery, then where does that leave other types of medicine?

You read some crackpot blogs, raas. :D